I think you might be streching a bit calling MLK "conciliatory". He beleived in non-violence (at a time when his opponents, ahem, did not) but that man never backed off an inch from his core principles. As to Malcolm being the "Angry Black Man", I am too young to actually remember it, but i hafta say that if the government was using dogs, tear gas and water cannons on me and my friends because we demanded our civil rights, i'd be pretty pissed off, too. Maybe the Gentle Preacher, and the Fiery Radical were both nesscesary to get this country to wake up. The neocon Freak Show will keep rolling along, no doubt. Anyone who expects racism to simply dissappear when President Obama walks into the Oval Office is deluding themselves. But maybe, just maybe, his approach to the matter will make both sides comfortable enough that we can have a national conversation (as opposed to a national shouting-match)  about just how instituionalized racism really is in this country. BO in '09!

I appreciate your post.  However, I have to disagree with your assesment of both Martin & Malcolm. In fact, both men were more complex than you make them out to be.  More importnatly, you draw a false dichotomy between the two and recreated the same narrative of  good vs. bad black man that isn't really healthy or helpful.  I think the thing missed is that for good or ill Barack Obama is a politician, they all behave, in many ways, the same way.  That said, while I think people like to utilize MLK for their own purposes few people in our current society truly want to remember MLK or Malcolm and the challenges they present to all of us.

Barack is a politician for sure. He may be one-note, too. Will he attract people of strength to provide him with cover for his weaknesses? He has no need to complete Martin's or Malcom's agenda. If he came across that way, he might draw unwanted attention. I was not happy to learn that the Secret Service scaled back screening efforts in Dallas. We do not need another martyr, we need a role model.

MLK was by far the most courageous of the three. He KNEW they were going to kill him for what he was doing and he did it anyways. "I may not get there with you..." malcolm was an ex-con huckster for a cult leader and his relevance is mainly housed in the fact that by representing a more extreme voice he pushed the whites to negotiate more with the MLK's of the world. Obama was not born the decendant of slaves and shares little of the common experience of most African Americans. He is talented polititian who will most likely become and important historical figure. Lets hope he can live up to his potential.

Having studied both Martin and Malcom for over 20 years I can tell from your portrait of them you haven't.  Your description of Obama demonstrates you haven't spent  much time getting to know him either.  There is still time, why don't you try instead of blowing out stereotypes?

Kordo:  I am supporting Obama but I in no way believe that his approach is going to make both sides comfortable having that national conversation.  I would guess that currently there is a side that is more than willing to have that conversation and that the other side, because it is unwilling to deal with the myths versus reality, will not discuss this dichotomy simply because they aren't threatened by Barack.  It is not simply a matter of wether we have "angry leaders" or not but that this institutionalized racism we speak of is so wrapped up in who we are (both black and white - and every other group in this society) that to protect it by not discussing it is to protect our identities - even to some degree for Black folk. Just my opinion.

I am not an Obama supporter, however I have to say my problem is not with his "blackness"  I do not believe that he has to cast himself in either the mold of King or Malcolm X.  The truth is he hasn't had either of their experiences.  His passion doesn't come from fighting through years of racism and disillusionment.  He c an be "hopeful" because the truth is he has not suffered through the African American experience.  He has only one note, because he has had only one experience.  He doesn't owe anything to anyone's legacy.  He is his own man.  And that is as it should be.

i agree about the dichotomy between malcolm and martin. it is over-used and doesn't expose who these people were when they died. remind me about the OAAU again! and it seem martin was killed when he picked up the poor peoples' struggle.  

i was raised in jamaica until 10 and i remember my first years here my afro-am friends telling me i did things like white folk ...imagine i did not see white people (unless on t.v.) until i came here.

recently, i watched the obama in africa documentary, a bunch of white folk in the audience, and i could not help think and smile:  wow, this man is in all these black countries and BLACK AS BLACK CAN BE people were treating him like a messiah and this was before he announced his presidency.

to the old gaurd afro-ams, he may not be black enough but afro-americans do not have the right to define blackness.  

yes politicians are crooks and power  corrupts but obama inspired me to register. after i did and started doing my research i found i had more w/kucinich and planned on voting for him even though obama inspired me as a black man. i am still concerned why would anyone want to be president at a time like this and clearly obama's success reflects how deep he is in the institution...

lastly, i had all these pics of great black men on my wall until recently. i took them down and put myself up there instead...now i can make a name for myself...malcolm, mlk, and obama ? will be remembered, will you?

Oh boy oh boy oh boy...I have to sigh because I think your comments are as "waffling" or no more "left of center" ( and I haven't the foggiest what that means) as you are aluding that Barack Obama's is...I am not American (thankfully?) but I think I can offer an opinion on your blog if you permit me...reducing Barack Obama to a man running around without a full range of emotions...is woefully pathetic...yuh know what I think, some African Americans are so mentally enslaved you would not recognise Martin Luther King if he was still alive today...what is it in the pschye of a people that would make thoughts like this emerge is baffling to me...sigh...why should he be "angry", describe for me ":as Black as what" ... Bill Clinton!!!. This is absolutely pitiful; either that or you may not be able to reconcile that African Americans have multiple realities and he can't be like King or Malcolm BECAUSE he is neither of them. Ruminate on the words of this song sir & enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYSxy32kDLQ&feature=related

How frustrating it must be to have what you're saying be so wholly disregarded in favor of what people are hearing. Dearest readers, please note the author hear is speaking in terms of media/white/lazy american perception (genralities!) of MLK and Malcom X. It is clearly meant as a catalyst for discussing the spectrum of Black leaders, how the media has portrayed them, how that affects the way we perceive our current reality, and how all of those things will converge to determine our choices/behavior in this election year.

memily is correct. There is tension between our perception of candidates and our trust in the vehicles we perceive them through. What can we believe? Maybe that is the key to Obama's appeal. He is daring us to hope that this time, this time we will know and trust him in spite of how we learned it.

While I haven't spent twenty years studying either Malcom X or Dr. King, I agree with Beta Beta.  There are an awful lot of stereotypes in your description and a lot of distrust regarding Barack Obama.  

I have been following Obama's campaign for several months now and believe that he has a cause and a strategy for forwarding that cause.  This is a new time, a time different than that of King and X's time and different times call for different measures.  I sincerely believe his cause is to uplift the underserved, under represented and the vilified.  I have been careful not to get caught up in the enthusiasm of the movment or his message, but I must admit I have been caught up in the enthusiam of the spirit he resonates which to me is undeniably true.  This led me search for facts about Mr. Obama.

I think the point must be made that if he is selling us a lie, it is a conspiracy that was given birth quite some time ago and it started with a desire to help those who needed help; people who were largely ignored while doing so with minimal pay, the the education for and attainment and surrender of a lucrative professional career which would also serve as a tool to further serve those very same people, a  search for the identity of african american people (when his people were truly African),  the desire to marry an African American women and head an African American family.  I think volumes must be spoken for the fact that in a society where mixed race folks (Tiger Woods comes rushing to my mind) and successful black folks have the luxury of disassociating from their blackness so to speak, Mr. Obama has not only embraced his but dared to make others respect it.  It is almost as though he feels he has a debt to pay to us for not "growing up black".   So if it is a game, he put a lot of time, money and sacrifice into it.

I am always perturbed at attempts to quantify blackness-my black aint  your black and yours aint mine.

The gulf between Martin and Malcolm wasn't as wide as you suggest. True enough, they started out in philosophically warring camps; Martin was perceived as the more palatable presence, Malcolm was seen as the fiery, volcanic figure. But shortly before Malcolm was taken from us, the two of them were moving together, getting near a common understanding of what was necessary to advance the lives of African Americans. That picture of them together — I know you've seen it — says more than a thousand words.

Barack Obama is succeeding not because he's one-note; Barack realizes the ways in which America has insisted on the black man from Central Casting — unpredictable, reliably angry, a loose cannon — and has cast his public persona in the context of the accessible. He doesn't need to display his "full range of emotions." What purpose would that serve? Martin and Malcolm were the templates of the black American persona that were needed for that time. Barack suits this time, this era, this call to change the nation. By all the available evidence, he's getting the job done very well.

i'm with memily and liwalo na liwe.

this is such a brief post. there's no way the complexities of the lives of malcolm and martin can be unpacked in three short paragraphs.

and i especially appreciate liwalo's comment about defining blackness. i identify as an african american, but only as african american as barack and (directed at macdw) there are certainly ways in which i've lived (i'd rather not simplify it to suffering) the african american experience, and there are other ways in which i haven't. but we can't break each other down this much. as far as i'm concerned, at this point, as african americans, we have a past that unifies us. some of that past lingers today (in the form of institutionalized racism and otherwise) and creates some similar experiences. but, the immense variation in the black community in this country in 2008 makes for remarkably individual black experiences. perhaps barack's is different from yours, but surely there are significant numbers of black americans with whom his story resonates.

the only comment i have in direct response to jimi izrael's words is this: put yourself in barack's shoes. imagine that you are a black man who really wants to win this presidential election. what are the things that you would see yourself doing? the compromises you'd make? i'm not necessarily saying my gut thinks it's "right," and it especially makes me nervous in terms of what a black presidency will look like (in contrast to just a black campaign), but i imagine that barack doesn't consider it in his best interest to show a full range of emotions. my man dna at too sense analyzed barack's rare emotional moment a few weeks back: http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/01/making-obama-angry-black-man.html

he was on point, as far as i'm concerned. i just think it's far more complicated than obama being dispassionate or robotic.

thanks for your words.

If you broaden this discussion a little...

There are precedents for Obama as spokesperson for a people that has no corollary in Hillary's campaign. When she claimed to be breaking ground as the first possible female president, she seemed to claim that that was more important than Obama being the first black president. This put female African-Americans in the hot seat.

Now that Obama has resonated with a cross-section of the electorate, it is important to recognize that this man, who happens to be African-American, speaks to us and for us. No one looks back to find a corollary for Malcom or Martin when viewing Hillary.

Malcom wanted to a be lawyer--what if Malcom had been a lawyer with his brilliant mind he would have been the Number one Black politician. " Black people are a messiah prone people" John Henrik Clarke was said in a lecture. Is Obama the messiah?

I went back and reread the piece.  The question really seems to be is Barack as angry as he should be.  I have read all of the comments about Martin and Malcolm but at the end the question is still is Barack as angry as he should be.  Martin and Malcolm are used to set up the question. Why does Obama have to be angry at all?  This is coming from someone often accused of being an angry Black man - why?  There are plenty of angry Black men who stew in their anger and make no difference in the larger scheme of things - so what.  Anger is not useful if it is not understood how to channel it.  By the way, there are plenty of us who are angry, frustrated and fed up with "the system" who have never endeavored against it.  Once again - so what.  I don't care if Barack is angry he isn't required to be.  But I do care about those amongst us who are angry and have done nothing about it.

The majority of the comments can be examples of exactly what you are referring to. People who do not fully understand what they are hearing, seeing, or reading. People construing their own realities.

Memily and a few others  (myself including)  understood your post to be a general perception of the three individuals, Malcolm, Martin, and Obama. Yet, many others responders ran off with totally different perspectives, mainly condemning your generalities, Can it be that some people can't see in very simple general terms. It is my contention that the majority of Americans see everything in general terms simply because we don't have the time for in depth analysis. We live in a world of 30 minute news broadcasts, 10 minutes of which are commercials.

It is true that Malcolm was more than the Nation if Islam. It is true that Martin was more than the marches and boycotts. But unfortunately, this is all that a majority of Americans, particularly white people,  know about either  man. The violent, angry Muslim, and the non-violent,  "sit-in" Christian.

Given the stark "generally percieved" dichotomy of the two civil rights icons, where does Obama fit in?  White people are thanking god that he is like neither. Black people are scratching their heads, thinking, well this is something new. I think the brilliance of Obama's campaign thus far is basically not allowing him to be branded.

Without darkness there would be no reference for light. Without cold how could heat be measured?

Martin, Malcolm, Chilsom, Jackson, and Sharpton are the "Obama reference or measuring stick."  Obama has clear historical reference or measuring points, and he is staying away from too hot, too cold, too dark, too light. To the very few informed individuals, Obama may be clearly definable, To the general public, with their shallow perceptions, he is everything that he is not.

I certainly drifted.

I grew up in the 60's. I did not mean to say anything other than the context to examine these three men seems so difficult. We're talking about a two generation differential. Are the politics these men stood for and against identical? To the extent that these men inspired or challenged or acted as cultural midwives, they have commonality.

You cannot step into the same river twice.

 Hehe, this is why I like your stuff, Jimi. Short, sweet, and to the point. You wrote less than 200 words, and got all this discussion going.  I'm a southern white male who's voting for Obama (deafening silence) , and i'm probably biased since I admire both Malcolm & MLK. This might sound a little naive, but it wasn't until pretty recently that I realized that white & black americans just flat-out do not understand each other. I was reading a web article wherein a black guy was talking about his shock at realizing that white folks will often to things they don't want to do out of politeness. He was genuinely surprised to suddenly realize this. I can sympathize. As a result of a lot of stupid behavior on my part, i spent a few years as a guest of the Florida Dept. of Corrections (hint: avoid the fish course at chow-time. seriously.), and it took me a while to realize that black people have absolutely no respect for you if you don't have the guts to stand up for yourself. Two seemingly simple observations from different sides of the issue, right? I was taught to be conciliatory, because that's how my "people" got along in the world. That writer was taught to stick up for himself, be cause if he didn't, no one else would. If we've (I've) been mistaken about something as obvious as this, what other cultural nuances are we missing about each other?  

Malcolm X was the Elvis Presley of the racial struggle all bluster and image and no substance. For the better part of his public life, he served as the articulate voice of black nihilism and pseudo religious fakery. While black men women and CHILDREN were paying the price down south, "Brother Malcolm" was blustering about the  non-humanity of the 'white devil' from the safety of 125th street.. So we give him credit for a few months of relative clarity and treat him as a martyr of racism, when he was snuffed out by Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan's henchmen.

I agree with some of the prior posts that the writer may have oversimplified the personalities of MLK and Malcom. However, I too am worried that Barack Obama has yet to say anything about the black community, in general. I have heard that this is a political strategy in order to distance himself from being seen as the "black candidate" (a lot of good it's doing), but it concerns me. If you don't address the concerns of the black community when you are a black president, what makes you any better than a Hillary Clinton or a John McCain?

If the issues of concern of the black community merge with other groups, would Barack have to single them out to be considered authentic? It would seem to me that when people of any background have common cause that we are seeing the end of racism. As Malcolm said, Brotherhood is a two-way street.

Your comments are true on the surface, but we all know that the world is not that simple or singularly focused.  Your attempt to define these men failed because we do not live in a vacuum.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was so much more than a "middle class preacher" and Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik El Shabazz) was infinitely more than the "Angry Black man" no matter whose eyes are gazing upon their contribution to society.  

What people fail to under stand is that we, African Americans, are as diverse in thought, perspective, and frame of mind as any culture in the world.  We have suffered, sacrifices, sustained, and supplemented (had to do it-kind of corny I know) collectively for generations.  Yet, we are individuals as well who have our own thoughts, dreams, and aspirations.  WEB DuBois was a believer in all things propaganda (literature, art, etc...) for the betterment of his people.  He said, "“…all art is propaganda and ever must be, despite the wailing of the purists. I stand in utter shamelessness and say that whatever art I have for writing has been used always for propaganda for gaining the right of black folk to love and enjoy. I do not care a damn for any art that is not used for propaganda."

I think because of the dual nature of our status as black people and as American citizens (history has proven there is a separation) anyone working in the public arena is by default propaganda in a sense.  There actions individual or in mass are reflect African Americans on the whole.  Sad but true.  

So when it comes to Obama (and all who work for the betterment of mankind)...He is a gift.  But he is not a used rewrapped gift that someone else gave us that is now being passed along to the next person.  For example, Marcus Garvey was not the second coming of Frederick Douglas.  Booker T. Washington and WEB DuBois were total opposites.  They all served different missions.  

Plus, the issues affecting the African American (esp inner city) community are prevalent in other communities as well.  Have statistically higher rates in some area, but poverty, illiteracy, crime, and unemployment exists every where.  So when Obama starts to addresses issues like these he can not address only African American because we are not in the country alone.  

You are correct that Senator Obama is no Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.  Why would we want him to be?  We have millions of individual people who can now (because of those who came before) stand in our own name and go to the promised land by any means necessary.  

I love the fact that we have so many great examples of "making it" like Oprah, the Johnson family, Cathy Hughes, and Michael Jordan (and many, many more).  Because they shine as example what is possible today for us.  Although, most of us will never reach the financial heights they have reached we can take solace in the fact that although racism still exists it would be difficult for anyone to stop you from accomplishing your goals in life if you are determined.  African Americans have gone global with the rest of the world.  There is much work still to be done, but I am going to stand and say that the work that already has been done is nothing short of miraculous and worthy of some celebration.

Your comments are true on the surface, but we all know that the world is not that simple or singularly focused.  Your attempt to define these men failed because we do not live in a vacuum.  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was so much more than a "middle class preacher" and Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik El Shabazz) was infinitely more than the "Angry Black man" no matter whose eyes are gazing upon their contribution to society.  

What people fail to under stand is that we, African Americans, are as diverse in thought, perspective, and frame of mind as any culture in the world.  We have suffered, sacrifices, sustained, and supplemented (had to do it-kind of corny I know) collectively for generations.  Yet, we are individuals as well who have our own thoughts, dreams, and aspirations.  WEB DuBois was a believer in all things propaganda (literature, art, etc...) for the betterment of his people.  He said, "“…all art is propaganda and ever must be, despite the wailing of the purists. I stand in utter shamelessness and say that whatever art I have for writing has been used always for propaganda for gaining the right of black folk to love and enjoy. I do not care a damn for any art that is not used for propaganda."

I think because of the dual nature of our status as black people and as American citizens (history has proven there is a separation) anyone working in the public arena is by default propaganda in a sense.  There actions individual or en-masse reflect African Americans on the whole.  Sad but true.  

So when it comes to Obama (and all who work for the betterment of mankind)...He is a gift.  But he is not, however, a used rewrapped gift that someone else gave us that is now being passed along to the next person.  For example, Marcus Garvey was not the second coming of Frederick Douglas.  Booker T. Washington and WEB DuBois were total opposites.  They all served different missions.  

Plus, issues affecting the African American (esp inner city) community are prevalent in other communities as well.  We have statistically higher rates in some area, but poverty, illiteracy, crime, and unemployment exists every where.  So when Obama starts to addresses issues like these he can not address only African American because we are not in the country alone.  He is not championing African American rights, he is running to be the leader of the free world.  World!  We should be proud of that whether we vote for him or not.  When I was born 70 percent of the African American community live below the poverty line now we have billionaires.  What!  

You are correct that Senator Obama is no Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.  Why would we want him to be?  We have millions of individual people who can now (because of those who came before) stand on their own and go to the promised land by any means necessary.  

I love the fact that we have so many great examples of "making it" like Oprah, the Johnson family, Cathy Hughes, and Michael Jordan (and many, many more).  They are the possibilities for us.  Although, most of us will never reach the financial heights they have reached we can take solace in the fact that although racism still exists it would be difficult for anyone to stop you from accomplishing your goals in life if you are determined.  African Americans have gone global with the rest of the world.  There is much work still to be done, but I am going to stand and say that the work that already has been done is nothing short of miraculous and worthy of some celebration.  Go Obama!